Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Awww...


Rachie
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i gave blood for the first time on the 1st of december. nearly didnt manage it, as i was dehyrated/thirsty they struggled to find a vein.

I am also now on the bone marrow transplant list (as a donor) which is in my view, just as important.

i have no idea what blood group i am in at the moment though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That questionnaire in full -

http://www.scotblood.co.uk/docs/DSRJD42005.pdf

being o-positive my blood is for everyone

O Negative is actually the group that can be given to anyone and is slightly less common, but they're always short of every type.

It's a year wait for piercings and tattoos. I think in England it's 6 months if you have an additional test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how old exactly do you have to be to do it?

I would totally do it

I've already said I'm donating my skeleton to science for anatomy and physiology students as I know myself how important it is to know about it.

My organs to be donated to those who need them.

My eyes..I want them for my own though..they're my source.

17 to give blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv tanned
Sorry I should've put more on to my answer but I was in a rush.

Basically they ask if you engage in risky behaviour which includes having sex a lot.

So i wouldn't think it is the case of "you are gay we aren't letting you give blood".

I am certain it's more to do with the sex life you lead.

Got this from an LGBT site.

Giving Blood is viewed by society as one of the most altruistic acts an individual can perform; yet there is a shortage of people in this country donating blood. The National Blood Service (NBS) is trying to encourage more and more people to give blood; you may have noticed the periodic recruitment drives on campus in an attempt to encourage us students to donate. But is the NBS really doing as much as it could be to tackle this deficit? Holding a policy essentially banning a whole sector of the population surely doesn't help the situation?

In a leaflet published in 2004 by the NBS 'Why We Ask Gay Men Not To Give Blood' the reason for the ban is explained as "It is specific behaviours' date=' rather than being gay, which places gay men at increased risk of HIV infection" The NBS argue that their life-time ban on men who have ever had sex with men is not discriminating against the identities of homosexual or bisexual men, but rather on the risky sex lives associated with this group. Whilst gay men are permanently banned from blood donation, a woman who has had sex with a gay or bisexual man is deferred from donating blood for a period of twelve months after the encounter and is then free to donate again.

The NBS says that some gay men "may have a very low risk of blood-borne infections and their blood would probably be safe to give to patients, but it is safest to ask everyone within the groups that have been identified {as posing a risk} not to give blood." The policy does not take into account the difference between monogamous gay men and those who sleep around or the difference between gay men who practice safer sex and those who use no protection.

The policy doesn't take into account the fact that women can carry out the very same behaviours that would mean a man couldn't give blood, the difference, presumably, being that the woman slept with a straight man. The National Blood Service assumes that anal sex has never occurred between a man and a woman, which most of us will be able to dismiss quite easily whether we have done it, known someone who has done it or simply seen a porno! HIV among the heterosexual population is a growing concern of the NAT; of the new diagnoses in the UK in 2003 1641 were Gay men whereas 3371 were heterosexuals. This destroys the NBS claim that Gay and Bisexual men have much riskier sex lives than straight people.

The National Aids Trust opposes the lifetime ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men saying, "It is out of step with health promotion messages, which emphasise risk behaviour rather than status as a member of a risk group." The ban perpetuates the myth of HIV as a 'gay disease', only transferable through sexual intercourse between two men, and makes it appear that heterosexual men and women are at less risk of HIV than gay and bisexual men. The NAT adds that, "the ban is out of step with epidemiology given that most new diagnoses {of HIV} in the UK relate to heterosexual transmissions." Programmes of sexual health education aimed specifically at gay men tend to focus on HIV and Aids and have seen awareness of the risk of contracting HIV through unprotected sex increase in the gay community.

Donated blood is always screened before use and the NAT claim that screening in this country is amongst the most efficient in the world. If a person was to give blood and happened to be infected with anything the blood would be screened before use and not used. Whether the donor was a straight woman or man or a gay or bisexual man seems irrelevant.

It seems that the NBS discriminates on the grounds of medical fact, which states that anal sex is a far higher risk activity than any other form of intercourse, rather than looking at current research, which shows that rates of new infection with HIV are highest amongst heterosexuals. It is strange that heterosexual women and gay men can carry out the same behaviours and yet receive different treatment from the National Blood Service; perhaps the NBS fear the reaction from the far right and Christian movements that would result from gay men being allowed to donate blood.

The religious fundamentalist group The Christian Institute published and handed out cards informing social services that if the carrier died they didn't want their children to be adopted by homosexuals. It is not hard to imagine the violent and unreasonable reaction from bigoted people like this to gay men being allowed to donate blood. This is a valid concern for the NBS as groups such as this could cause major problems for the service. It would be nice if the NBS could be honest and, rather than hide behind shaky medical evidence, admit that the grounds for banning donation from gay men is fear of an enormous backlash.

The National Blood Service provides a vital service that saves the lives of thousands of people in the UK each year and it would be counter-productive to campaign against this. What we want is for the NBS to allow viable and safe candidates, whether gay or straight, to donate blood and help save lives; accepting donations of blood from gay and bisexual men would help with the current shortage of blood in the UK. It is easier to ban donations from gay men as, generally, the gay rights movement acts in a socially responsible way and would never respond in a way which negatively affected the National Blood Service. The same cannot be said, sadly, for those who oppose gay rights who are much more likely to respond violently and destructively to the NBS accepting donations from gay men.[/quote']

Like it or lump it, screening techniques nowadays make the potential for infection much less likely than when the whole "HIV transfusions" issue first arose.

Anyway, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but this is an issue I feel strongly about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i feel the same way as tv tanned does about this issue and also because of their issue with piercings and tattoos. it only takes about 3 months for an std or hepatitis to develop (so said the woman at family planning last time i got screened) so a year long/lifetime ban seems ridiculous. especially as all blood is screened prior to donation. surely it would make more sense to ask if a person had participated in 'risky behaviour/unprotected sex' within the last 3 months and if they hadn't, then allow them to donate, regardless of sexual orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like it or lump it' date=' screening techniques nowadays make the potential for infection much less likely than when the whole "HIV transfusions" issue first arose.

Anyway, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but this is an issue I feel strongly about.[/quote']

That is a bit silly. I had no idea that homosexuals who had sex with men were banned for life.

I do agree that it is crazy considering the campaigns they make to try and get people to give blood.

Is there many other countries that have this policy or is it just the U.K?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got this from an LGBT site.

Like it or lump it' date=' screening techniques nowadays make the potential for infection much less likely than when the whole "HIV transfusions" issue first arose.

Anyway, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but this is an issue I feel strongly about.[/quote']

Fair enough, but please don't let this turn into a massive debate on this... My point is, if you are able to give blood - please do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tv tanned
Fair enough' date=' but please don't let this turn into a massive debate on this... My point is, if you are able to give blood - [b']please do it.

Yes, and I supported that point wholeheartedly, to the extent that I with my wimpy needle-phobia am going to go along with the Mrs at some point and donate.

Her nice bruises make me a bit uneasy though.

I realise you have issues with me espousing on things, but it was hardly an entirely unrelated point, and besides, there's not likely to be a debate since most folk seem to be in agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the first time I gave blood I was topping up the missing space in the pub that evening and my mates girlfriend asked why I had a silly plaster on my arm.

I told her that'd I'd met a young lady the night before and gone back to hers and injected drugs.

and she believed me.

Make sure you have a good excuse for that silly plaster.

Pete

PS. drinking after giving blood makes you seriously pissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good excuse for that silly plaster? Surely 'I gave blood today' would be a good enough reply?

Rach, next time you go tell me. I'm totally up for doing it, i just need a nudge, like the gym :p

Although, having spoken to some folk over the last few days, my dad included, they all seemed to have recieved cards from the Blood Donation folk about a small child being able to return home just in time for christmas/birthdays after getting their blood. they've either cooked up a cunning plan to make everyone feel extra special after donating or there are many ill kids out there, which is equally possible :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...